From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.182.107.135 with SMTP id hc7mr117367obb.48.1409780864253; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:47:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.83.180 with SMTP id j49mr2847qgd.1.1409780864135; Wed, 03 Sep 2014 14:47:44 -0700 (PDT) Path: border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!news.ripco.com!news.glorb.com!r2no13835896igi.0!news-out.google.com!q8ni0qal.1!nntp.google.com!m5no5585648qaj.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 14:47:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <766dc3c7-916b-488c-813c-8aee8b05ca0f@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2a02:120b:c3e3:9270:4164:b49a:c91e:a362; posting-account=gRqrnQkAAAAC_02ynnhqGk1VRQlve6ZG NNTP-Posting-Host: 2a02:120b:c3e3:9270:4164:b49a:c91e:a362 References: <8fd27434-43c2-4bd1-b72b-dd7a0ef5af75@googlegroups.com> <4407fc6e-a3a6-47d6-8f49-a5a0a1e8e0c4@googlegroups.com> <1409734659.7121.231.camel@obry.net> <1409759532.7121.252.camel@obry.net> <766dc3c7-916b-488c-813c-8aee8b05ca0f@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <98bd4dbe-7762-48ec-80b8-c1cec80c489e@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Is there a way to do large block of source code comments From: gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com Injection-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 21:47:44 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:188848 Date: 2014-09-03T14:47:44-07:00 List-Id: Le mercredi 3 septembre 2014 20:53:01 UTC+2, Adam Beneschan a =E9crit=A0: > I don't see why not. The language designers would have to come up with s= ome simple rules, but this isn't hard: >=20 > The sequence (*, if not in a conventional comment, starts a block comment= . The comment ends with the next occurrence of the sequence *) that is not= in a conventional comment. Within a block comment, it is illegal for the = sequence (* to appear except in a conventional comment. A character sequen= ce is "in a conventional comment" if it occurs anywhere between the sequenc= e -- and the nearest subsequent end-of-line character.=20 Hey, not so easy! If you admit (* in a conventional comment within a block = comment, then you need to specify that a *) is closing the nested (*, or pe= rhaps not (then it would be closing the outer block comment), and also what= happens if a *) is in a conventional comment but a one or more rows later.= Is it closing the nested (* or the outer one ? Of course the question goes= recursively with nesting... I have some memories of headaches in the 80's or 90's when I was programmin= g in Pascal with *) closing a {, or not, and so on. And I'm happy not havin= g to deal with these block comments since then. These block comments become very quickly very messy, especially because the= re may be unforeseen cases in the specification ( :-) ), and even if the sp= ecification is bullet-proof, compilers, parsers, editors or pretty printers= may easily misinterpret the rules... _________________________ Gautier's Ada programming http://gautiersblog.blogspot.com/search/label/Ada NB: follow the above link for a valid e-mail address